Trial reportLangenbeck's archives of surgery2024
Safety and efficacy of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and outcomes of salvage HoLEP after TURP: a comparative study.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Methodological flaws in study on transurethral holmium laser enucleation.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) compared to bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate (bTUR-P) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
methodsA total of 220 BPH patients hospitalized from January 2022 to September 2023 were included in this study. These patients were randomly assigned to HoLEP and bTUR-P groups, with 110 participants in each group. We collected preoperative general information, perioperative data, complications, and postoperative follow-up indicators from both groups of patients.
resultsThe baseline characteristics of patients in both groups were similar, with no statistical significance (P > 0.05). Compared to the bTUR-P group, the HoLEP group exhibited significantly less intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.001), shorter bladder irrigation time (P = 0.002), shorter catheter retention time (P < 0.001), and reduced postoperative hospitalization (P = 0.002). Additionally, the pain score during urination after catheter removal was significantly lower in the HoLEP group (P < 0.001). Postoperative complications occurred in both groups; however, they were less frequent in the HoLEP group (4 cases), primarily consisting of urinary retention and postoperative bleeding. The bTUR-P group experienced more complications (9 cases). Significant reductions in postoperative residual urine volume (RUV) were observed in both groups (P < 0.001). Both groups also showed significant improvements in Quality of Life (QoL) scores and International Prostate Symptom Scores (IPSS), with the HoLEP group demonstrating a more significant decrease in IPSS (P < 0.001).
conclusionAfter comprehensive evaluation, HoLEP was superior to bTUR-P in terms of safety and efficacy. Therefore, HoLEP may be a preferable choice for the treatment of BPH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39425787What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.